rotate_sprite

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation nature is already known. The description adds useful scope information ('entire sprite', clockwise direction), but omits whether rotation is in place or saved to a file, and whether 90/270 rotation resizes the canvas.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Purpose, scope, and accepted values are all in one clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-param mutation with no output schema, this covers the essentials. However, it says nothing about whether rotation applies across all cels/frames, whether the canvas is resized for 90/270, or whether results persist — relevant for a write tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the param burden. It usefully constrains 'angle' to 90/180/270 clockwise when the schema only says 'integer' with no enum — a real gap filled. 'filename' is undocumented but self-evident.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Rotate the entire sprite') and adds scope ('entire sprite') plus the accepted angles. This distinguishes it from per-cel operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with flip_sprite or offset_cels, which are the nearest siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never mentions flip_sprite, offset_cels, or scale_sprite as alternatives, so the agent must infer that this is the dedicated rotation tool from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.